Vedic
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,144
- Reaction score
- 0
watermelon = Viagra?
- Thread starter stylesbjj**
- Start date
- Status
Vedic
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,144
- Reaction score
- 0
Vedic
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,144
- Reaction score
- 0
Wow now that was a crock of BS:icon_lol:
Vedic
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,144
- Reaction score
- 0
Hey Cory, uummmm,:icon_lol: Yo know Doctor Campbell who you quoted a few posts ago? Well see at the top of your post where it says some meat and dairy is needed? Well those researchers at Cornell, would be working for him:icon_lol: That is where he is the lead researcher etc. But hey man, nice try.
Vedic
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,144
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes I am perfectly clear on what they are :icon_lol: Would you like me to go in on that too?
Not thin really, and actually man, if you knew anything about me you would know ow sick I was this past year. But by all means, carry on. I have read the china study, see you keep referring to that, but here is the thing. You referred to that in the first place. That means you didn't read the protein debate between he an Dr. Cordain. He picked it apart piece by piece for you. Then you posted a study from his school where it says meat and dairy are needed. hahahaha, that is pure comedy.
Never said that, but you preach reading both sides, and you never read the other side of the cina debate. Damn funny man, how old are you Cory?
C
Cory_Pilfold
Guest
I actually posted some stuff based off researchers from cornell as well.
You know what? I'm done with It, I just posted a lot of sources with scientific back up. If you refuse to even look at them objectively, beyond what you know from "dr campbell" Then You are just too ignorant to even talk to. Seriously dude, Are you so in belief of what you heard from ONE DOCTOR. that you can't even venture out of your extremely closed mind. It's ok vedic, You will learn eventually.
By the way. YOU HAVE BEEN DEBUNKED! . deal with it. You told me to link you scientific studies, and university based studies..I did so, and you still called me an idiot / know nothing / etc.
Just proves who Im arguing with.
Is that right? Sorry but all vedic is proved to me is that he believes that animal protein is the ONLY protein you can get!
That's from the ONLY source he posted, I looked at it. I checked it out, I tried to understand where he was coming from. But as soon as this guy said that animal protein is the only form of protein in existance, I just stopped listening. This doctor is very flawed, And I'm still waiting for somebody to debunk all my sources.
I posted A LOT OF SOURCES. Even studies from harvard, Numerous scientists, and cornell.
All vedic posted was a resource claiming that protein is the greatest of all nutrients, and it only comes from animals..when in reality thats just not true.
Sorry vedic, I hate to say it..But the research you're believing, is based off at least 10 years ago. Things have changed, 10 years ago..EVERYBODY believed that meat and milk was required, and we needed it to live.
Like i said, Until you look at ALL the evidence i provided objectively..It's like arguing with a child, Just shoot yourself..You call me close minded / stupid / know nothing, and yet you pass off university based studies and science like It's all untrue without a shadow of a doubt.
What you need to realize is that Your doctor specializes in the standard american diet. You know, the one that 60% of people have become obese and ill off? Meat based diets are low in carbs..Carbs are what we NEED for energy. You're argument is basically revolving around the fact that protein is the greatest of all nutrients, and it only comes from animals.
Like i said, Your study is based off information from 10 years ago. Provide me with some information debunking everything I just posted. Just do it, I know you cant..Yet you still want to talk about how stupid i am.
It's okay, I don't even care any more vedic..you already proved your just as ignroant and informed as you claim I am. You already proved that all you have is from one source, and from a biased doctor I might add..who has been debunked on several occasions.
C
Cory_Pilfold
Guest
U.S. Physicians Say Meat Not Necessary,
Actually Harmful
Posted by Dr. Jai Maharaj
Recent Nutritional Research Affirms
Superiority of the Vegetarian Diet for Humans
Thirty-five years ago the US Department of Agriculture said we should daily eat from four food groups: 1. meat, fish and poultry; 2. grains; 3. dairy products; and 4. fruits and vegetables.
On April 9, 1991 the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a prestigious non-profit organization active in health and research policy and based in Washington, D.C., said basing our diet on those groups not only will not ensure adequate nutrition, consumption of meat, fish, poultry and dairy products actually causes disease.
Instead PCRM recommends a "New Four Food Groups." They are: 1. fruits; 2. grains; 3. vegetables; and 4. legumes.
This is a very significant development for vegetarians whose traditional vegetarian diet -- which easily fulfills the requirements of the "new" groups -- has been under attack in many countries by physicians sharing the common ignorance of modern medicine toward diet.
For example, numerous physicians have insisted that mothers feed their children meat -- "A real mistake," says Dr. Neal Barnard, leading to all sorts of diseases such as colic, juvenile diabetes, diarrhea and later problems such as cancer of the colon. Dr. Devananda Tandavan points out that the average doctor in America has had almost no training whatsoever in nutrition by the time he has finished medical school and may remain ignorant for the rest of his professional life on the importance of diet for good health.
Though others have made similar recommendations to revise the American diet, none have done so with quite the authority of the 4,000-plus member PCRM. The committee's president, Dr. Neal D. Barnard -- himself a vegetarian -- is a director of Behavioral Studies at the Institute for Disease Prevention at George Washington University.
PCRM members instrumental in formulating the new food groups include Dr. T. Colin Campbell, Professor of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University and Director of the massive China Health Project. Collaborator Dr. Oliver Alabaster is Director of the Institute for Disease Prevention at the George Washington University.
How did we end up with such a poor choice of food groups 35 years ago? Inadequate nutritional research for one thing. But more insidiously, since food guides were first established in 1916, there has been a tendency to give animal products a "preferred" designation. "This element of food guides has persisted until the present time, due in part to the intensive lobbying efforts of the food industry, and despite evidence of the adverse health effects of such foods, " says the PCRM report.
The situation is similar to the tobacco industry's continual denial of the harmful effects of smoking. In response to the four new food groups, a former US Secretary of Agriculture, John R. Block (president of the National American Wholesale Grocers' Association and a pig farmer in Illinois) denounced the committee's recommendations as the "height of irresponsibility."
Other reactions focused more on the difficulty of altering the food habits of the steak- and hamburger-eating American public than on the scientific validity of the new diet.
PCRM attacks the old, traditional four food groups on three major fronts. First, they say, "The old food groups fail to assure nutritional adequacy." The four food groups were established according to the understanding of nutritional needs in 1953. Since that time, the required daily allowances (RDA's) for protein, vitamins, minerals, etc. have been extensively revised and expanded. A 1978 study showed that only 9 of the 17 RDA's were met by the typical diet based on the old groups.
The second problem is that "The old four food groups fail to adequately address the current dietary problems of our population." Specifically, the the 1977-78 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey indicates that Americans who eat diets based on the four food groups consume an excessive amount of fat."
Studies show that dietary fat and associated consumption of excess protein is related to breast cancer, heart disease, obesity, kidney disease and osteoporosis, to name a few.
Third, states the PCRM, "The old four food groups serve to misinform consumers about some aspects of nutrition. Two of the four food groups -- meats and dairy products -- are clearly not necessary for health and, in fact, may be detrimental to health.... Populations with the lowest rates of heart disease, colon and breast cancer, and obesity consume very little meat or no meat at all."
The PCRM concludes that "The average adult can meet nutrient needs by consuming five servings of grains, three servings of legumes, three servings of vegetables and three servings of fruits each day."
The New Four Food Groups
Whole Grains This group includes rice, bread, pasta, hot or cold cereal, corn, millet, barley, bulgur, buckwheat groats and tortillas. Build each of your meals around a hearty grain dish. Grains are rich in fiber and other complex carbohydrates, as well as proteins, B vitamins and zinc.
Vegetables Vegetables are packed with nutrients; they provide vitamin C, beta-carotene, riboflavin and other vitamins, iron, calcium and fiber. Dark green, leafy vegetables such as broccoli, collards, kale, mustard and turnip greens, chicory or bok choy are especially good ources of of these important nutrients. Dark yellow and orange vegetables such as carrots, winter squash, sweet potatoes and pumpkin provide extra beta-carotene. Include generous portions or a variety of vegetables in your diet.
Legumes Legumes, which is another name for beans, peas and lentils, are all good sources of fiber, protein, iron, calcium, zinc and B vitamins. This group also includes the daals in Indian cuisine, pulses, chickpeas, baked and refried beans, soy milk, tofu, and texturized vegetable protein.
Fruit Fruits are rich in fiber, vitamin C and beta-carotene. Be sure to include at least one serving each day of fruits that are high in vitamin C -- citrus fruits, melons and strawberries are all good choices. Choose whole fruit over fruit juices, which don't contain as much healthy fiber.
Food Group
Number of
Servings
Typical Items and Serving Size
Whole Grains
5 or more
1/2 cup hot cereal + 1 ounce dry cereal + 1 slice of bread
Vegetables
3 or more
1 cup raw + 1 cup cooked
Legumes
2 to 3
1/2 cup cooked beans + 4 ounces tofu or tempeh
Fruits
3 or more
1 medium piece of fruit + 1/2 cup cooked fruit
Like i said before, there is various university studies and science that backs up the claim that cholesterol clogs arteries. Cholesterol only comes from meat product, and therefore clogged arteries only happen through intake of meat. The fact that america's diet revolves around meat, Is a good example of why america is the sickest country in the world..also the most obese, and I could also say ignorant..But I'm not going to, Lets just go with uninformed.
Actually Harmful
Posted by Dr. Jai Maharaj
Recent Nutritional Research Affirms
Superiority of the Vegetarian Diet for Humans
Thirty-five years ago the US Department of Agriculture said we should daily eat from four food groups: 1. meat, fish and poultry; 2. grains; 3. dairy products; and 4. fruits and vegetables.
On April 9, 1991 the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a prestigious non-profit organization active in health and research policy and based in Washington, D.C., said basing our diet on those groups not only will not ensure adequate nutrition, consumption of meat, fish, poultry and dairy products actually causes disease.
Instead PCRM recommends a "New Four Food Groups." They are: 1. fruits; 2. grains; 3. vegetables; and 4. legumes.
This is a very significant development for vegetarians whose traditional vegetarian diet -- which easily fulfills the requirements of the "new" groups -- has been under attack in many countries by physicians sharing the common ignorance of modern medicine toward diet.
For example, numerous physicians have insisted that mothers feed their children meat -- "A real mistake," says Dr. Neal Barnard, leading to all sorts of diseases such as colic, juvenile diabetes, diarrhea and later problems such as cancer of the colon. Dr. Devananda Tandavan points out that the average doctor in America has had almost no training whatsoever in nutrition by the time he has finished medical school and may remain ignorant for the rest of his professional life on the importance of diet for good health.
Though others have made similar recommendations to revise the American diet, none have done so with quite the authority of the 4,000-plus member PCRM. The committee's president, Dr. Neal D. Barnard -- himself a vegetarian -- is a director of Behavioral Studies at the Institute for Disease Prevention at George Washington University.
PCRM members instrumental in formulating the new food groups include Dr. T. Colin Campbell, Professor of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University and Director of the massive China Health Project. Collaborator Dr. Oliver Alabaster is Director of the Institute for Disease Prevention at the George Washington University.
How did we end up with such a poor choice of food groups 35 years ago? Inadequate nutritional research for one thing. But more insidiously, since food guides were first established in 1916, there has been a tendency to give animal products a "preferred" designation. "This element of food guides has persisted until the present time, due in part to the intensive lobbying efforts of the food industry, and despite evidence of the adverse health effects of such foods, " says the PCRM report.
The situation is similar to the tobacco industry's continual denial of the harmful effects of smoking. In response to the four new food groups, a former US Secretary of Agriculture, John R. Block (president of the National American Wholesale Grocers' Association and a pig farmer in Illinois) denounced the committee's recommendations as the "height of irresponsibility."
Other reactions focused more on the difficulty of altering the food habits of the steak- and hamburger-eating American public than on the scientific validity of the new diet.
PCRM attacks the old, traditional four food groups on three major fronts. First, they say, "The old food groups fail to assure nutritional adequacy." The four food groups were established according to the understanding of nutritional needs in 1953. Since that time, the required daily allowances (RDA's) for protein, vitamins, minerals, etc. have been extensively revised and expanded. A 1978 study showed that only 9 of the 17 RDA's were met by the typical diet based on the old groups.
The second problem is that "The old four food groups fail to adequately address the current dietary problems of our population." Specifically, the the 1977-78 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey indicates that Americans who eat diets based on the four food groups consume an excessive amount of fat."
Studies show that dietary fat and associated consumption of excess protein is related to breast cancer, heart disease, obesity, kidney disease and osteoporosis, to name a few.
Third, states the PCRM, "The old four food groups serve to misinform consumers about some aspects of nutrition. Two of the four food groups -- meats and dairy products -- are clearly not necessary for health and, in fact, may be detrimental to health.... Populations with the lowest rates of heart disease, colon and breast cancer, and obesity consume very little meat or no meat at all."
The PCRM concludes that "The average adult can meet nutrient needs by consuming five servings of grains, three servings of legumes, three servings of vegetables and three servings of fruits each day."
The New Four Food Groups
Whole Grains This group includes rice, bread, pasta, hot or cold cereal, corn, millet, barley, bulgur, buckwheat groats and tortillas. Build each of your meals around a hearty grain dish. Grains are rich in fiber and other complex carbohydrates, as well as proteins, B vitamins and zinc.
Vegetables Vegetables are packed with nutrients; they provide vitamin C, beta-carotene, riboflavin and other vitamins, iron, calcium and fiber. Dark green, leafy vegetables such as broccoli, collards, kale, mustard and turnip greens, chicory or bok choy are especially good ources of of these important nutrients. Dark yellow and orange vegetables such as carrots, winter squash, sweet potatoes and pumpkin provide extra beta-carotene. Include generous portions or a variety of vegetables in your diet.
Legumes Legumes, which is another name for beans, peas and lentils, are all good sources of fiber, protein, iron, calcium, zinc and B vitamins. This group also includes the daals in Indian cuisine, pulses, chickpeas, baked and refried beans, soy milk, tofu, and texturized vegetable protein.
Fruit Fruits are rich in fiber, vitamin C and beta-carotene. Be sure to include at least one serving each day of fruits that are high in vitamin C -- citrus fruits, melons and strawberries are all good choices. Choose whole fruit over fruit juices, which don't contain as much healthy fiber.
Food Group
Number of
Servings
Typical Items and Serving Size
Whole Grains
5 or more
1/2 cup hot cereal + 1 ounce dry cereal + 1 slice of bread
Vegetables
3 or more
1 cup raw + 1 cup cooked
Legumes
2 to 3
1/2 cup cooked beans + 4 ounces tofu or tempeh
Fruits
3 or more
1 medium piece of fruit + 1/2 cup cooked fruit
Like i said before, there is various university studies and science that backs up the claim that cholesterol clogs arteries. Cholesterol only comes from meat product, and therefore clogged arteries only happen through intake of meat. The fact that america's diet revolves around meat, Is a good example of why america is the sickest country in the world..also the most obese, and I could also say ignorant..But I'm not going to, Lets just go with uninformed.
Vedic
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,144
- Reaction score
- 0
Ya and the point is, they work for Campbell ahahaha.
You did, people that back being a omnivore. Yes that is healthy for you. Not to mention you never read the "protein debate" our you would have known better than to post that rubbish.
No I blieve what I have heard from Cordain, Tipton, Ivy, Tunell, Mathis, Zodhorsky and others. UNlike you basing it off the same docs over and over. I learn everyday, seriously hat education level do you have, before you question mine?
Really where? You posted Campbells, work, after not reading my post where it was debunked. Brilliant. Ten you posted his work, where he admits omnivore is healthier and his own researchers proved it. Brilliant again.
So what is your point? You have got to be high school aged etc. Frankly your reasoning and posting order of studies etc, makes no sense.
You did, people that back being a omnivore. Yes that is healthy for you. Not to mention you never read the "protein debate" our you would have known better than to post that rubbish.
No I blieve what I have heard from Cordain, Tipton, Ivy, Tunell, Mathis, Zodhorsky and others. UNlike you basing it off the same docs over and over. I learn everyday, seriously hat education level do you have, before you question mine?
Really where? You posted Campbells, work, after not reading my post where it was debunked. Brilliant. Ten you posted his work, where he admits omnivore is healthier and his own researchers proved it. Brilliant again.
So what is your point? You have got to be high school aged etc. Frankly your reasoning and posting order of studies etc, makes no sense.
C
Cory_Pilfold
Guest
Omnivore means that we weren't created to Be meat eaters, In fact...The only reason we eat meat is the past, Is because we as humans ate what we could get / find. It's not a daily requirement in our diet, and I have a ton of proof..You don't, you have studies based off our national food guide, which is a complete joke imo.
Look up the meaning of omnivore and you will see that We AS HUMANS were not created to be meat eaters, We are significantly different than every single carnivore known to man. Very similar to Plant based animals like hippos / zebras / etc..
::: THE CHINA STUDY :::
You should check out the china study..it's very interesting study. It looks at things from the other side of the spectrum.
Ironically, At the same time "dr campbell" is one of those doctors who believes theres no cure for cancer / diabetes / virtually all forms of major disease. This simply is fucking bullshit, and In fact If your immune system is strong..it should be strong enough to fight off disease and illness, INCLUDING cancer..Although this has got to be done without a meat based diet.
The list below contains foods that are especially high in saturated fat, cholesterol, or both. This list is adapted from guidelines from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. You'll need to limit these foods to improve your heart health:
* fatty cuts of meat, including meat drippings
* bacon, sausage, and processed meats
* duck, chicken, or turkey with skin
* egg yolks
* butter
* fat or oil that is hard or in stick form, lard, and shortening
* hydrogenated vegetable oil
* coconut, coconut oil, palm oil, palm kernel oil, and cocoa butter
* avocado
* cream, half-and-half, and whole-milk dairy products, such as cheese, ice cream, and sour cream
* processed grain products, such as cookies, cakes, muffins, and pastries
advertisement
C
Cory_Pilfold
Guest
The World Health Organization has determined that dietary factors account for at least 30 percent of all cancers in Western countries and up to 20 percent in developing countries. When cancer researchers started to search for links between diet and cancer, one of the most noticeable findings was that people who avoided meat were much less likely to develop the disease. Large studies in England and Germany showed that vegetarians were about 40 percent less likely to develop cancer compared to meat eaters.1-3 In the United States, researchers studied Seventh-day Adventists, a religious group that is remarkable because, although nearly all members avoid tobacco and alcohol and follow generally healthful lifestyles, about half of the Adventist population is vegetarian, while the other half consumes modest amounts of meat. This fact allowed scientists to separate the effects of eating meat from other factors. Overall, these studies showed significant reductions in cancer risk among those who avoided meat.4 In contrast, Harvard studies showed that daily meat eaters have approximately three times the colon cancer risk, compared to those who rarely eat meat.
A number of hypotheses have been advanced to explain the connection between meat consumption and cancer risk. First, meat is devoid of fiber and other nutrients that have a protective effect. Meat also contains animal protein, saturated fat, and, in some cases, carcinogenic compounds such as heterocyclic amines (HCA) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) formed during the processing or cooking of meat. HCAs, formed as meat is cooked at high temperatures, and PAHs, formed during the burning of organic substances, are believed to increase cancer risk. In addition, the high fat content of meat and other animal products increases hormone production, thus increasing the risk of hormone-related cancers such as breast and prostate cancer.
In 1997, the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) published a review of the major studies on food, nutrition, and cancer prevention. For cancers of the breast, prostate, kidney, and pancreas, it was determined that red meat (beef, pork, or lamb) consumption possibly increased cancer risk. For colorectal cancer, a review of the literature determined that red meat probably increased cancer risk and that processed meat, saturated/animal fat, and heavily cooked meat possibly increased risk.5
Remember, you tried to get me to believe that vegetarians were the ones that were unhealthy? I do agree with you that majority of them do not know how to eat properly, and only become a vegatarian for animal rights purposes / health /etc.
But you fail to also mention that 60% of the meat eating population is obese/ and has some form of cancer in prostate / colon / breast cancer. majority of meat eaters are extremely unhealthy people, and are frequently lacking in many nutrients and amino acids needed for survival and adequate nutrition..simply due to the fact that most meat eaters only eat one serving of vegetables a day and no fruit.
You really think you can survive with ONLY meat and nothing else? then you have no right to call me ignorant.
A number of hypotheses have been advanced to explain the connection between meat consumption and cancer risk. First, meat is devoid of fiber and other nutrients that have a protective effect. Meat also contains animal protein, saturated fat, and, in some cases, carcinogenic compounds such as heterocyclic amines (HCA) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) formed during the processing or cooking of meat. HCAs, formed as meat is cooked at high temperatures, and PAHs, formed during the burning of organic substances, are believed to increase cancer risk. In addition, the high fat content of meat and other animal products increases hormone production, thus increasing the risk of hormone-related cancers such as breast and prostate cancer.
In 1997, the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) published a review of the major studies on food, nutrition, and cancer prevention. For cancers of the breast, prostate, kidney, and pancreas, it was determined that red meat (beef, pork, or lamb) consumption possibly increased cancer risk. For colorectal cancer, a review of the literature determined that red meat probably increased cancer risk and that processed meat, saturated/animal fat, and heavily cooked meat possibly increased risk.5
Remember, you tried to get me to believe that vegetarians were the ones that were unhealthy? I do agree with you that majority of them do not know how to eat properly, and only become a vegatarian for animal rights purposes / health /etc.
But you fail to also mention that 60% of the meat eating population is obese/ and has some form of cancer in prostate / colon / breast cancer. majority of meat eaters are extremely unhealthy people, and are frequently lacking in many nutrients and amino acids needed for survival and adequate nutrition..simply due to the fact that most meat eaters only eat one serving of vegetables a day and no fruit.
You really think you can survive with ONLY meat and nothing else? then you have no right to call me ignorant.
Vedic
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,144
- Reaction score
- 0
Limit those, says who? The rest is in red. Come on Cory, jesus this is getting boring with a high school education equivelant.
C
Cory_Pilfold
Guest
The World Health Organization has determined that dietary factors account for at least 30 percent of all cancers in Western countries and up to 20 percent in developing countries. When cancer researchers started to search for links between diet and cancer, one of the most noticeable findings was that people who avoided meat were much less likely to develop the disease. Large studies in England and Germany showed that vegetarians were about 40 percent less likely to develop cancer compared to meat eaters.1-3 In the United States, researchers studied Seventh-day Adventists, a religious group that is remarkable because, although nearly all members avoid tobacco and alcohol and follow generally healthful lifestyles, about half of the Adventist population is vegetarian, while the other half consumes modest amounts of meat. This fact allowed scientists to separate the effects of eating meat from other factors. Overall, these studies showed significant reductions in cancer risk among those who avoided meat.4 In contrast, Harvard studies showed that daily meat eaters have approximately three times the colon cancer risk, compared to those who rarely eat meat.
A number of hypotheses have been advanced to explain the connection between meat consumption and cancer risk. First, meat is devoid of fiber and other nutrients that have a protective effect. Meat also contains animal protein, saturated fat, and, in some cases, carcinogenic compounds such as heterocyclic amines (HCA) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) formed during the processing or cooking of meat. HCAs, formed as meat is cooked at high temperatures, and PAHs, formed during the burning of organic substances, are believed to increase cancer risk. In addition, the high fat content of meat and other animal products increases hormone production, thus increasing the risk of hormone-related cancers such as breast and prostate cancer.
In 1997, the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) published a review of the major studies on food, nutrition, and cancer prevention. For cancers of the breast, prostate, kidney, and pancreas, it was determined that red meat (beef, pork, or lamb) consumption possibly increased cancer risk. For colorectal cancer, a review of the literature determined that red meat probably increased cancer risk and that processed meat, saturated/animal fat, and heavily cooked meat possibly increased risk.5
Remember, you tried to get me to believe that vegetarians were the ones that were unhealthy? I do agree with you that majority of them do not know how to eat properly, and only become a vegatarian for animal rights purposes / health /etc.
But you fail to also mention that 60% of the meat eating population is obese/ and has some form of cancer in prostate / colon / breast cancer. majority of meat eaters are extremely unhealthy people, and are frequently lacking in many nutrients and amino acids needed for survival and adequate nutrition..simply due to the fact that most meat eaters only eat one serving of vegetables a day and no fruit.
You really think you can survive with ONLY meat and nothing else? then you have no right to call me ignorant. I'm having fun debunking your bullshit.
I want to put to rest the belief that fat (especially saturated fat) and dietary cholesterol are bad for us.
I will also show proof that aside from being the best diet for stripping fat, low-carb nutrition actually improves health markers more than a low-fat diet.
Let the games begin…
Where Did All This Nonsense Begin?
Surely if so many people believe something, it must be based on solid evidence right?
Wrong!
If a hypothesis is put forward and believed without being adequately tested, you have a shaky foundation. If this hypothesis is built upon for decades with no further questioning or testing, you have a house of cards. This house is ready to topple, in fact, it should have fell a long time ago.
Ancel Keys
It all started with a physiologist named Ancel Keys, Ph.D., back in the 1950’s. I’m not going to bash the guy because I feel that although he was mistaken, he was well-meaning. In 1953 he published a paper titled “Atherosclerosis, a Problem in Newer Public Health.” It seems that from here, our dietary fate was sealed.
Keys compared fat intake and deaths from heart disease in 6 countries:
1. United States
2. Canada
3. England
4. Australia
5. Italy
6. Japan
The implications for dietary fat were dire!
As fat intake increases in these countries, heart disease mortality rates increases, oh dear! The US had the highest fat intake and also had the highest number of deaths due to heart disease, Japan ate the least fat and had the lowest number of deaths.
There was, however, one big problem with what became known as the ‘Diet-Heart Hypothesis.’ Data was available for a total of 22 countries, not 6. When ALL the statistics are analyzed, the ‘fat-heart disease’ correlation ceases to exist.
Check out the following 2min 30 sec clip from a soon-to-be-released documentary before you read further…
A number of hypotheses have been advanced to explain the connection between meat consumption and cancer risk. First, meat is devoid of fiber and other nutrients that have a protective effect. Meat also contains animal protein, saturated fat, and, in some cases, carcinogenic compounds such as heterocyclic amines (HCA) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) formed during the processing or cooking of meat. HCAs, formed as meat is cooked at high temperatures, and PAHs, formed during the burning of organic substances, are believed to increase cancer risk. In addition, the high fat content of meat and other animal products increases hormone production, thus increasing the risk of hormone-related cancers such as breast and prostate cancer.
In 1997, the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) published a review of the major studies on food, nutrition, and cancer prevention. For cancers of the breast, prostate, kidney, and pancreas, it was determined that red meat (beef, pork, or lamb) consumption possibly increased cancer risk. For colorectal cancer, a review of the literature determined that red meat probably increased cancer risk and that processed meat, saturated/animal fat, and heavily cooked meat possibly increased risk.5
Remember, you tried to get me to believe that vegetarians were the ones that were unhealthy? I do agree with you that majority of them do not know how to eat properly, and only become a vegatarian for animal rights purposes / health /etc.
But you fail to also mention that 60% of the meat eating population is obese/ and has some form of cancer in prostate / colon / breast cancer. majority of meat eaters are extremely unhealthy people, and are frequently lacking in many nutrients and amino acids needed for survival and adequate nutrition..simply due to the fact that most meat eaters only eat one serving of vegetables a day and no fruit.
You really think you can survive with ONLY meat and nothing else? then you have no right to call me ignorant. I'm having fun debunking your bullshit.
I want to put to rest the belief that fat (especially saturated fat) and dietary cholesterol are bad for us.
I will also show proof that aside from being the best diet for stripping fat, low-carb nutrition actually improves health markers more than a low-fat diet.
Let the games begin…
Where Did All This Nonsense Begin?
Surely if so many people believe something, it must be based on solid evidence right?
Wrong!
If a hypothesis is put forward and believed without being adequately tested, you have a shaky foundation. If this hypothesis is built upon for decades with no further questioning or testing, you have a house of cards. This house is ready to topple, in fact, it should have fell a long time ago.
Ancel Keys
It all started with a physiologist named Ancel Keys, Ph.D., back in the 1950’s. I’m not going to bash the guy because I feel that although he was mistaken, he was well-meaning. In 1953 he published a paper titled “Atherosclerosis, a Problem in Newer Public Health.” It seems that from here, our dietary fate was sealed.
Keys compared fat intake and deaths from heart disease in 6 countries:
1. United States
2. Canada
3. England
4. Australia
5. Italy
6. Japan
The implications for dietary fat were dire!
As fat intake increases in these countries, heart disease mortality rates increases, oh dear! The US had the highest fat intake and also had the highest number of deaths due to heart disease, Japan ate the least fat and had the lowest number of deaths.
There was, however, one big problem with what became known as the ‘Diet-Heart Hypothesis.’ Data was available for a total of 22 countries, not 6. When ALL the statistics are analyzed, the ‘fat-heart disease’ correlation ceases to exist.
Check out the following 2min 30 sec clip from a soon-to-be-released documentary before you read further…
Vedic
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,144
- Reaction score
- 0
In red again, and yet again, prove yourself Cory, otherwise you are another dumb hippie:icon_lol:
C
Cory_Pilfold
Guest
Actually we were? with nothing to back it up? I've actually studied various types of carnivores, as well as looked at many different scientific studies as well. We are built nothing like carnivores, and the fact is..majority of the time we can't even kill the meat (back then) if we didn't have a weapon. You'll find the more research you do, the more you'll find out that ONLY IN THE LAST 60 YEARS has our diet changed towards a purely meat based diet. If you actually did some studies instead of blindly talking out of your ass, you would find that we are significantly different than almost every single known carnivore on the planet. We are omnivore and that means we simply ate what was there, Just because we can digest it doesn't mean anything. You can feed meat to a hippo, does that make it any less of a plant eating animal? Again very poor logic from somebody with clearly NO proof backing up anything he says, beyond a doctor named doctor campbell. Which i already debunked in numerous sources.
I think you love meat so much that you just really don't want to accept the belief that it might possibly be bad for you. You can just ignore scientific studies, and university studies based from harvard / cornell..as if they were coming from idiots who knew nothing. Yet you get around to call ME stupid, and CALL ME an idiot..having a high school education, when in reality you've ignored all of the evidence i actually posted. Please, If you actually read all of it, you would realize that what you're saying is incredibly retarded.
Vedic
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,144
- Reaction score
- 0
Oh shit man, look at this, improved blood profiles when introducing meat.
This is taken from Robb Wolf's blog; he's a former biochemist who now owns and trains at a Crossfit facility. While I personally see the value in a Paleo-type diet, I'm still very skeptical of IF (intermittent fasting). Just some food for thought:
Sarena sent me some interesting numbers from some old and current blood work. They beautifully illustrate what happens when we control insulin levels and emulate our ancestral diet.
Here is what Sarena sent me:
This was from about a month before starting IFing.
Just thought this may be of use to you!
Oct 27, 2006
chol total 168
HDL 54
Chol/HDL ratioo 3.1
LDL
102
Triglycerides 61
HA1C 6.0
Oct 19, 2007
Chol total 156
HDL 63
Chol/HDL ratio 2.5
LDL 85
Triglycerides 41
HA1C 5.9
I think the numbers speak for themselves. This was the
addition of CF, a return to eating meat, after 14 years
of being vegetarian, and going Paleo with Zone
macronutrients and the addition of Omega 3s. I cut out all the grains that were supposed to be good for me and
started life over as a carnivore!!
So, we have about one year elapsed in which Sarena adopted a paleo
diet and she started playing with intermittent fasting. The results
are pretty striking: HDL
This is taken from Robb Wolf's blog; he's a former biochemist who now owns and trains at a Crossfit facility. While I personally see the value in a Paleo-type diet, I'm still very skeptical of IF (intermittent fasting). Just some food for thought:
Sarena sent me some interesting numbers from some old and current blood work. They beautifully illustrate what happens when we control insulin levels and emulate our ancestral diet.
Here is what Sarena sent me:
This was from about a month before starting IFing.
Just thought this may be of use to you!
Oct 27, 2006
chol total 168
HDL 54
Chol/HDL ratioo 3.1
LDL
102
Triglycerides 61
HA1C 6.0
Oct 19, 2007
Chol total 156
HDL 63
Chol/HDL ratio 2.5
LDL 85
Triglycerides 41
HA1C 5.9
I think the numbers speak for themselves. This was the
addition of CF, a return to eating meat, after 14 years
of being vegetarian, and going Paleo with Zone
macronutrients and the addition of Omega 3s. I cut out all the grains that were supposed to be good for me and
started life over as a carnivore!!
So, we have about one year elapsed in which Sarena adopted a paleo
diet and she started playing with intermittent fasting. The results
are pretty striking: HDL
Vedic
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,144
- Reaction score
- 0
I just posted a very recent profile on a woman that trained with a partner of mine. Care to debunk it Cory?
C
Cory_Pilfold
Guest
Unfortunately, despite the flawed conclusions of Keys, the media and the American Heart Association jumped on board the diet-heart hypothesis bandwagon.
In the 1970’s Keys bolstered his hypothesis by publishing a study suggesting that saturated fat (from animal sources) leads to high cholesterol which, in turn, leads to heart disease. This is still the conventional wisdom today. Again, out of the 7 countries selected, the correlation between saturated fat and heart disease was not seen but hey, don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story.
Saturated Fat In The Human Diet
Almost all the saturated fat in our diet comes in 3 forms:
1. Stearic acid
2. Palmitic acid
3. Lauric acid
Before we get into looking at each acid, let’s discuss the differences between LDL and HDL cholesterol.
1. LDL is the bad guy (specifically the small, dense LDL particles)
2. HDL is the good guy
Increasing LDL levels while HDL levels remain constant is bad news. The opposite is good news. Raising HDL cholesterol in proportion to LDL is very beneficial for your health. Raising both by equal amounts has no effect.
Now let’s have a little fun
Firstly, it’s well established today that stearic acid has no effect on cholesterol levels. In fact, stearic acid, found in abundance in animal fat, is converted to monounsaturated fat in your liver. This is obviously healthy and raises good cholesterol and therefore lowers risk of heart disease. Hmm, not much wrong there, is there? The result of consumption of this acid is either nil or even beneficial to your health. Let’s move on…
Both Palmitic and Lauric acid raise total cholesterol. This obviously has no real effect with respect to coronary heart disease risk factor.
Now, let’s add the three forms of saturated fat together and see what happens:
1 x beneficial + 2 x benign = Beneficial net effect
Wow! You mean ‘artery-clogging saturated fat‘ doesn’t clog arteries?
Yes, and it’s important to remember that a diet high in fat will also be high in unsaturated fats so the net result of high fat intake, coupled with lower carb intake, is a reduced risk of heart disease.
This is the story of surprised researchers as they see the startling results of studies involving groups consuming low fat/high carb diets Vs groups consuming high fat/low carb diets i.e. more fat loss and improved lipid profiles in the high fat/low carb camp. However, even though the science is staring them in the face, they fall short of recommending it as a way of eating.
The Proof’s In The Low-Fat Pudding
50 years of the ‘diet-heart hypothesis’ and it turns out to be a dud. So many wasted years and so much money wasted on studies trying to prove the unprovable.
Let’s take the latest one for example (as at 7th May 2008). At a cost of $415 million, The Women’s Health Initiative monitored 49,000 subjects over an average period of 8 years - a HUGE study. They were advised to eat more vegetables, fruits and grains and less fat (20% of daily calories - only 44 grams of total fat per day on a 2000 calorie-per-day diet), especially saturated fat.
The results finally came in, the media waited with bated breath - guess what effect this low fat diet had on heart disease……
I'll bet your also trying to prove to me that high fats diet from meat based products are good for disease? and tell me that vegetables are the culprits for disease?
Now, lest you think I’m just one guy with these opinions on saturated fat and cholesterol, check out the list (not exhaustive) below of professionals who are also in the know:
* Dr. Eric Westman from Duke University
* Dr. Mary C. Vernon from the University of Kansas
* Dr. Jeff Volek from the Univeristy of Connecticut
* Dr. Richard Feinman from SUNY Downstate
* Dr. Steven Phinney from the University of California-Davis
* Dr. Jay Wortman from Canada
* Dr. Annika Dahlqvist from Sweden (who succeeded in changing government dietary guidelines)
* Drs. Mike & Mary Dan Eades from Protein Power
* Gary Taubes - Science Journalist, author of Good Calories, Bad Calories
* Dr. John Briffa in the UK
* Adam Campbell at Men’s Health magazine
* Cassandra Forsythe at the University of Connecticut
* Dr. Larry McCleary, a brain surgeon who wrote The Brain Trust Program
* Dr. Barry Groves in the UK
* Dr. Richard Bernstein working with diabetics
* Dr. Gil Wilshire, reproductive endocrinologist in Missouri
* Dr. Donald Layman from The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
* Dr. Keith Berkowitz in New York City
* Dr. Fred Pescatore from the Hampton’s Diet
* Dr. Barry Sears from The Zone Diet
* Dr. Jonny Bowden from California
In the 1970’s Keys bolstered his hypothesis by publishing a study suggesting that saturated fat (from animal sources) leads to high cholesterol which, in turn, leads to heart disease. This is still the conventional wisdom today. Again, out of the 7 countries selected, the correlation between saturated fat and heart disease was not seen but hey, don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story.
Saturated Fat In The Human Diet
Almost all the saturated fat in our diet comes in 3 forms:
1. Stearic acid
2. Palmitic acid
3. Lauric acid
Before we get into looking at each acid, let’s discuss the differences between LDL and HDL cholesterol.
1. LDL is the bad guy (specifically the small, dense LDL particles)
2. HDL is the good guy
Increasing LDL levels while HDL levels remain constant is bad news. The opposite is good news. Raising HDL cholesterol in proportion to LDL is very beneficial for your health. Raising both by equal amounts has no effect.
Now let’s have a little fun
Firstly, it’s well established today that stearic acid has no effect on cholesterol levels. In fact, stearic acid, found in abundance in animal fat, is converted to monounsaturated fat in your liver. This is obviously healthy and raises good cholesterol and therefore lowers risk of heart disease. Hmm, not much wrong there, is there? The result of consumption of this acid is either nil or even beneficial to your health. Let’s move on…
Both Palmitic and Lauric acid raise total cholesterol. This obviously has no real effect with respect to coronary heart disease risk factor.
Now, let’s add the three forms of saturated fat together and see what happens:
1 x beneficial + 2 x benign = Beneficial net effect
Wow! You mean ‘artery-clogging saturated fat‘ doesn’t clog arteries?
Yes, and it’s important to remember that a diet high in fat will also be high in unsaturated fats so the net result of high fat intake, coupled with lower carb intake, is a reduced risk of heart disease.
This is the story of surprised researchers as they see the startling results of studies involving groups consuming low fat/high carb diets Vs groups consuming high fat/low carb diets i.e. more fat loss and improved lipid profiles in the high fat/low carb camp. However, even though the science is staring them in the face, they fall short of recommending it as a way of eating.
The Proof’s In The Low-Fat Pudding
50 years of the ‘diet-heart hypothesis’ and it turns out to be a dud. So many wasted years and so much money wasted on studies trying to prove the unprovable.
Let’s take the latest one for example (as at 7th May 2008). At a cost of $415 million, The Women’s Health Initiative monitored 49,000 subjects over an average period of 8 years - a HUGE study. They were advised to eat more vegetables, fruits and grains and less fat (20% of daily calories - only 44 grams of total fat per day on a 2000 calorie-per-day diet), especially saturated fat.
The results finally came in, the media waited with bated breath - guess what effect this low fat diet had on heart disease……
I'll bet your also trying to prove to me that high fats diet from meat based products are good for disease? and tell me that vegetables are the culprits for disease?
Now, lest you think I’m just one guy with these opinions on saturated fat and cholesterol, check out the list (not exhaustive) below of professionals who are also in the know:
* Dr. Eric Westman from Duke University
* Dr. Mary C. Vernon from the University of Kansas
* Dr. Jeff Volek from the Univeristy of Connecticut
* Dr. Richard Feinman from SUNY Downstate
* Dr. Steven Phinney from the University of California-Davis
* Dr. Jay Wortman from Canada
* Dr. Annika Dahlqvist from Sweden (who succeeded in changing government dietary guidelines)
* Drs. Mike & Mary Dan Eades from Protein Power
* Gary Taubes - Science Journalist, author of Good Calories, Bad Calories
* Dr. John Briffa in the UK
* Adam Campbell at Men’s Health magazine
* Cassandra Forsythe at the University of Connecticut
* Dr. Larry McCleary, a brain surgeon who wrote The Brain Trust Program
* Dr. Barry Groves in the UK
* Dr. Richard Bernstein working with diabetics
* Dr. Gil Wilshire, reproductive endocrinologist in Missouri
* Dr. Donald Layman from The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
* Dr. Keith Berkowitz in New York City
* Dr. Fred Pescatore from the Hampton’s Diet
* Dr. Barry Sears from The Zone Diet
* Dr. Jonny Bowden from California
Vedic
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,144
- Reaction score
- 0
Vedic
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,144
- Reaction score
- 0
- Status
